H5320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 26, 2012 

Coble 

Cole 

Conaway 

Costa 

Costello 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Cuellar 

Davis (KY) 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Rahall 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (AR) 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOES—172 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Bass (NH) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McNerney 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Shuler 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOT VOTING—14 

Ackerman 

Akin 

Bilbray 

Cardoza 

Coffman (CO) 

Culberson 

Davis (IL) 

Hirono 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Mack 

Meeks 

Murphy (CT) 

Stivers 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). There is 1 minute remaining. 

b 1250 

So the bill was passed. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 519, 

520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 

529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, and 536, 

I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been 

present I would have voted ‘‘aye’’ on rollcall 

No. 519, ‘‘no’’ on rollcall No. 520, ‘‘no’’ on rollcall No. 521, ‘‘no’’ on rollcall No. 522, ‘‘no’’ on 

rollcall No. 523, ‘‘no’’ on rollcall No. 524, ‘‘aye’’ 

on rollcall No. 525, ‘‘no’’ on rollcall No. 526, 

‘‘aye’’ on rollcall No. 527, ‘‘no’’ on rollcall No. 

528, ‘‘no’’ on rollcall No. 529, ‘‘no’’ on rollcall 

No. 530, ‘‘aye’’ on rollcall No. 531, ‘‘aye’’ on 

rollcall No. 532, ‘‘no’’ on rollcall No. 533, ‘‘aye’’ 

on rollcall No. 534, ‘‘no’’ on rollcall No. 535 

and ‘‘aye’’ on rollcall No. 536. 

f 

PERMISSION FOR MEMBER TO BE 

CONSIDERED AS FIRST SPONSOR 

OF H.R. 3703 

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 

I may hereafter be considered to be the 

first sponsor of H.R. 3703, a bill originally introduced by Representative 

Inslee of Washington, for the purposes 

of adding cosponsors and requesting 

reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule 

XII. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? 

There was no objection. 

f 

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given 

permission to address the House for 1 

minute.) 

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to 

my friend, the majority leader, for the 

purpose of inquiring about the schedule 

for the coming week. 

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman 

from Maryland, the Democratic whip, 

for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House 

will meet in pro forma session, but no 

votes are expected. On Tuesday the 

House will meet at noon for morninghour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. 

Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. 

On Wednesday and Thursday the House 

will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour 

and noon for legislative business. On 

Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. 

for legislative business. Last votes of 

the week are expected no later than 3 

p.m. 

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider 

a number of suspensions on Tuesday 

and Wednesday, a complete list of 

which will be announced by the close of 

business tomorrow. 

In addition, the House will consider 

two bills under a rule to stop the tax 

hikes and provide for comprehensive 

tax reform: H.R. 8, the Job Protection 

and Recession Prevention Act, sponsored by Chairman DAVE CAMP; and 

H.R. 6169, the Pathway to Job Creation 

through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code 

Act, sponsored by Chairman DAVID

DREIER. Together, these bills will ensure that no American faces a tax hike 

on January 1, while providing our 

small business men and women with 

the certainty to grow and create jobs. 

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House may 

consider legislation related to programs and disaster assistance under 

the expiring farm bill legislation. 

I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman 

for that information. 

As the gentleman knows, he was unable to have the colloquy last week, 

and so Mr. ROSKAM and I talked about 

the schedule. Last week, the chief deputy majority whip mentioned that we 

would be voting on the tax bill, as you 

have done, and he also mentioned that 

we would be given the opportunity to 

offer a substitute amendment on the 

floor of our choosing. 

Is that still the plan of the majority 

so that we’ll be able to offer that legislation? I yield to my friend. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I didn’t 

understand the gentleman’s question, 

if he would please clarify. 

Mr. HOYER. My question is: Last 

week we had a colloquy, and Mr. ROSKAM indicated that we would be able to 

offer an amendment, not just an 

MTR—we discussed that—but an 

amendment to the bill. Now, we 

weren’t precise whether it was in the 

form of a substitute or an amendment. 

But in either event, I’m asking, Mr. 

Majority Leader, whether that is still 

the case and whether or not such 

amendment will be obviously protected 

under the rule for such waivers as may 

be necessary for the piece of legislation 

that Mr. ROSKAM referred to? 

Mr. CANTOR. Again, without having 

been privy to the conversation between 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5321 

the gentleman from Illinois and my 

friend from Maryland, I can say that 

the minority will be afforded the opportunity to offer the President’s tax 

plan—not just as a motion to recommit, but certainly as a stand-alone 

amendment, as well. 

Mr. HOYER. Let me be more precise, 

then, because I’m not sure whether or 

not the definition of the President’s 

plan—in his weekly press conference 

just a few hours ago, or maybe just a 

few minutes ago, Mr. BOEHNER was 

asked if we would be allowed to vote on 

the Senate tax bill, to which he responded: 

If our Democrat colleagues want to offer 

the President’s plan in the Senate, then we 

are more than happy to give them a vote. 

He said that just a few minutes ago. 

Our intention will probably be to 

offer the bill that has now passed the 

Senate, which will protect middle class 

taxpayers from any tax increase, as I 

think your party, Mr. Leader, and my 

party agree on. 

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we 

would be able to offer that alternative 

on the floor with such protections as 

would be necessary consistent with 

what Speaker BOEHNER has said. 

I yield to my friend. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I say to 

the gentleman, again, it is our intention to allow the minority to offer as a 

motion to recommit or as a standalone amendment the President’s plan. 

Obviously, we’ll have to see what is 

being offered, but that is the intention, 

consistent with the Speaker’s remarks 

publicly today. 

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would 

hope that we would not parse words. 

Mr. Leader, we have had some discussions on this, and the majority party, 

when it was the minority party running for office, said that we’re going to 

have open, full debate. Mr. BOEHNER

has said in the Pledge to America that 

that’s what you wanted to do. Now you 

keep parsing your words. 

I will tell you the President’s plan. 

The President’s plan currently is the 

bill that passed the Senate just a few 

hours ago, yesterday. That’s the President’s plan, I tell my friend. And if, in 

fact, Mr. BOEHNER’s words are to be interpreted as something other than 

that, he says: 

If our Democratic colleagues want to offer 

the President’s plan in the Senate— 

Now, obviously, we can’t offer our 

plan in the Senate. We’re House Members. So my presumption is, Mr. Leader, that that means, if we want to offer 

the Senate plan, which is now the 

President’s plan, I tell my friend— 

—we’re more than happy to give them a 

vote. 

I hope that is accurate. I hope that 

we can have a full and open debate on 

that issue. But I hope that the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, 

does not choose the amendment that 

we are to offer. Let us choose it, I tell 

my friend. And I would hope that we 

could clarify that so that we would 

know, and the American people would 

know, that we have a plan now passed 

by the Senate, and we have a plan also 

that was defeated in the United States 

Senate. 

I don’t know whether your side intends to offer exactly the plan that was 

defeated in the United States Senate, 

but it is a plan that the President of 

the United States, as the leader knows, 

has said he won’t sign. 

So what I ask my friend, respectfully, so that we know what to prepare 

for and we know that it will be made in 

order, that consistent with what the 

clear meaning of this statement that 

Mr. BOEHNER made just a few hours ago 

is, that we would be given the opportunity to offer the Senate-passed plan 

and would have a vote on that plan either in the form of an amendment or a 

substitute? 

I yield to my friend. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will say 

back to the gentleman, we do expect, 

and our intention is, to allow your tax 

hike to be made in order. I don’t understand, Mr. Speaker, how many more 

times I have to say that. The Speaker 

has always represented that we were 

going to work towards an open process. 

I would remind the gentleman that 

when his party was last in the majority 

and considered the extension of expiring rates in 2010 that his party made in 

order just one amendment to H.R. 4853, 

for their own Member, Mr. LEVIN, not 

for the Republicans, because we were 

not offered a single amendment. 

b 1300 

We weren’t even offered a motion to 

recommit. In fact, the Pelosi-led Congress denied us a motion to recommit 

on 47 separate occasions. 

So I would say to the gentleman 

again, the Speaker has been consistent 

throughout. We intend to continue to 

strive towards an open process. We intend to offer you a motion to recommit, a stand-alone amendment, if you 

want to offer a tax hike twice. That is 

our intention, yes, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. 

And I will interpret that, Mr. Speaker, 

as indicating that if we choose to offer 

as an amendment the bill that passed 

the Senate—which ensures that there 

will be no tax increase on 98 percent of 

Americans—that we will be allowed to 

offer that bill and it will be protected 

under the rule, and such waivers as are 

necessary will be extended. That’s how 

I interpret that. If I am wrong, perhaps 

the majority leader can correct me. 

But I don’t want to parse words or lead 

to confusion. 

The gentleman knows what the Senate bill is. I know what the Senate bill 

is. And it is, at this point in time, our 

intention to offer that Senate bill as an 

amendment to the bill that’s offered on 

this floor. So I would hope that our understanding is that, consistent again— 

and I want to say consistent with the 

Speaker’s comments—that that will be 

allowed. 

I want to say to the gentleman as 

well, I think he is appropriate in referencing the past, and I’m pleased that 

he is not following such precedents. 

Mr. CANTOR. I appreciate that, Mr. 

Speaker. I’d say to the gentleman, 

thank you for that note. 

I know the gentleman is continuing 

to express his support for the President’s plan. As the gentleman knows, 

our colleagues on the Republican side 

of the aisle in the Senate feel strongly, 

as we do over here in the House, that 

the President’s tax plan, as was demonstrated recently by a nonpartisan 

study, will cost the economy over 

700,000 jobs. It will reduce economic 

output. The gentleman knows our position on that. And we intend to, again, 

allow for that vote to occur and look 

forward to a robust debate that will 

ensue. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I 

think that clarifies it. He and I both 

look forward to that robust debate. We 

will clearly differ, Mr. Speaker, on the 

impact of that vote. But there will be 

no dispute that it will ensure that 98 

percent of Americans, every working 

family—every working family, 100 percent—will not pay any additional taxes 

on the first $250,000 of their income, 

which we think gives confidence to 

people, gives confidence to the economy, and we think is an appropriate 

step to take. So I appreciate and look 

forward to that debate, which I think 

is an important one for the American 

people. 

I would also like to ask the gentleman, with respect to the farm bill, 

he mentions in his comments that 

there may be some vote on the farm 

bill. The Senate passed a bipartisan 

farm bill, as the gentleman knows. It 

saves very substantial monies, will 

contribute to a reduction of the deficit. 

Can the gentleman tell me whether or 

not the House-passed farm bill will be 

brought to the floor or whether some 

alternative will be brought to the 

floor? 

And I yield to my friend. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I’d say to 

the gentleman that we’re continuing to 

work with Chairman LUCAS and our 

Members to determine the best way 

forward. 

I would say to the gentleman that 

the Senate bill he refers to does not 

have a majority of support in the 

House, and actually would ask the gentleman if he would respond to the question whether he supports the House 

farm bill. 

Mr. HOYER. I do not support the 

House farm bill, but as the gentleman 

knows, the ranking Democrat does support that farm bill. So as the gentleman likes to observe on many occasions, it does have bipartisan support. 

He asked for my personal opinion, 

Mr. Speaker, and I’ve given him my 

personal opinion. But that bill itself 

will save substantial dollars and bring 

down the deficit—not as much as the 

Senate bill, but it will have a positive 

effect on the deficit itself. In either 

event, however, we have some real distress in farm country, very substantial 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5322 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 26, 2012 

drought, in great need of making sure 

that there’s some way to assist those 

farmers who, through no fault of their 

own, but through the fault or the result of weather conditions—lack of 

rain—are in distress. So we believe 

that something ought to be brought to 

the floor that will, A, not exacerbate 

the deficit, and, B, help the farmer. 

I yield to my friend if he has anything additional. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I’d say to 

the gentleman, I’m glad to hear that 

the gentleman would like to support an 

effort to address the need for drought 

assistance and perhaps other programs 

that have or will expire, and look forward to perhaps his support if that’s 

where we end up next week, allowing 

for that vote to occur, along with his 

support. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. 

Hopefully, we can agree on how to do 

that, again, without making the deficit 

worse and adding to that and hopefully 

helping farmers at the same time. 

Let me ask the gentleman, there are 

two very important bills that were 

passed, one in the Senate—again, with 

an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, 

and here, with not an overwhelmingly 

bipartisan vote—in the Violence 

Against Women Act, a very, very important subject. There was a very significant 62–37 vote in the Senate. Excuse me, that’s not the exact figure. 

That’s on the postal bill, which I’ll ask 

you about in a second. It was 68–31— 

even more bipartisan than the postal 

reform bill—back on April 26, some 

months ago, with 15 Senate Republicans joining in favor. I don’t see that 

on the schedule. I don’t know whether 

the gentleman believes there’s a possibility that we’ll be able to pass that before the election. 

I yield to my friend. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I respond 

to the gentleman and say that, as he 

knows, the Senate bill is unconstitutional because it contains a revenue 

measure in it. So we are unable to get 

to conference with the Senate. I think 

that I, as well as the Speaker, have indicated that we support going to conference with the Senate. They need to 

produce a bill so that we can go to conference and effect a passage of that 

very important legislation to allow for 

relief monies to get to the victims that 

that bill and legislation is designed to 

protect. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. 

Of course, the gentleman knows that 

that would be a very simple cure to 

simply drop the Senate bill, which has 

overwhelming bipartisan support, into 

an H.R. bill, a House bill, and that 

would cure that deficiency. I agree 

with the gentleman, I think that’s well 

known. But that’s a technical issue. If 

we have agreement in both the House 

and the Senate, put that in a House bill 

and pass it. So I think that we can act 

on it. 

I yield to my friend. 

Mr. CANTOR. Well, Mr. Speaker, I 

think the gentleman knows the Senate 

bill can’t pass the House. 

We’re trying to produce results for 

the people and particularly for the victims that need that assistance in that 

bill, and believe that this, our bill, the 

VAWA bill that passed the House, can 

pass the Senate. And again, I would say 

that the Senate bill is unconstitutional 

and it can’t pass the House. 

So it seems to me that the best way 

forward is for the Senate to agree to 

the bill, which pretty much extends existing legislation, with some minor 

changes, so that the victims of abuse 

needing the assistance can actually receive that assistance. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman 

for those comments, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman well 

knows, the House bill excluded a large 

number of people from protection, a 

large number of people who are the victims of domestic violence from protection, as contrasted with the Senate 

bill, which was designed to ensure protection of all people who were subject 

to domestic abuse and designed to encourage people to make complaints 

against those who abuse them without 

fear of adverse consequences to them 

so that we could get abusers dealt with 

in a proper way. 

b 1310 

And again, I would say to my friend, 

Mr. Speaker, that over two-thirds of 

the United States Senate, with an 

overwhelming number of Republicans 

as well voting for the Senate bill because they believed it was inclusive. 

And of course every woman Member of 

the Senate, Republican and Democrat, 

who probably have greater insight into 

domestic abuse than perhaps some of 

us males and male colleagues have. 

So I would hope that we could focus 

on trying to reach agreement which we 

did not have in the House, as the gentleman knows. We had not an overwhelming bipartisan support in this 

House at all on the bill that was 

passed. So I would hope that we could 

compromise, cure the technical difficulty that the bill, the Senate bill 

passes, because, the gentleman’s right, 

it has a fee in there, it has to initiate 

in the House. 

But the gentleman also knows if 

that’s included in the House bill, that 

that defect would be cured and we 

could pass it. 

I would yield to my friend if he wants 

to make any additional comment on 

that bill. 

Mr. CANTOR. I would respond to the 

gentleman by saying there are many 

women Members of our conference that 

are cosponsors of that bill, and I know 

of at least one, if not more, who’ve 

been subject to domestic abuse, and 

feel that our bill does provide the necessary protections for everyone who is 

subject to domestic abuse, and feel 

that the bill does address the concerns 

the gentleman raises. 

And in the business of trying to 

produce results rather than to dwell on 

where there are differences, if those individuals who sponsored the bill and 

who have, unfortunately, had experience in domestic abuse, as well as law 

enforcement, if that is the case, certainly, those individuals would know 

about it more than the gentleman or I. 

I think we ought to go about passing 

this bill and allow for the Senate to go 

ahead and do so, so the victims of domestic abuse can actually receive the 

protections and assistance they deserve. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman 

for his comment. 

As I interpret that, Mr. Speaker, pass 

the House bill or no bill. Pass the 

House bill that had 23 Republicans voting against it. Pass the House bill, and 

reject a Senate bill that has 68 United 

States Senators, a large number. 

Mr. CANTOR. Will the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. HOYER. Certainly. 

Mr. CANTOR. I said to the gentleman, we really do want to go to the 

conference with the Senate. Okay? And 

so it’s not pass the Senate bill or no 

bill. 

We want to go to conference with the 

Senate, Mr. Speaker. I’ve said that. So 

I do take exception to the gentleman’s 

remarks. 

Mr. HOYER. Let me then, reclaiming 

my time—I’m pleased to withdraw that 

assertion. But in the comments, I want 

to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I do 

not share the majority leader’s opinion 

that the House bill covers all people. 

As a matter of fact, I think that’s inaccurate and incorrect. We disagree on 

our facts there, our analysis of the bill. 

What we don’t disagree on, however, 

because the facts are clear that we 

have a bill that overwhelmingly passed 

in the Senate. I’m fully prepared to 

work with a conference, as the majority leader is, and work with him in a 

conference to get a bill out of the conference. 

I’m hopeful, Mr. Leader, that in light 

of the fact that in this House the bill 

passed 222–205, with 23 Republicans voting ‘‘no’’ on the bill, that we not only 

have bipartisan opposition, but we 

have bipartisan support of the Senate 

bill. 

Let me go on to another bill that I 

think is very important because the 

postal department is facing real stress. 

It’s somewhat ironic that we are, in a 

Congress that has too often lamented 

the fact that the Senate couldn’t act 

on things, when they do act, and when 

they do act in a bipartisan fashion, it 

seems we can’t act. 

The postal bill has now been passed 

by a vote of 62 votes in favor, another 

bipartisan vote of the postal bill, and 

I’m wondering whether or not the gentleman has any idea whether we might 

either go to conference or bring a bill 

out on the House floor that I know has 

been passed out of committee, so that 

this bill can get to conference in a 

timely fashion so that the Post Office, 

which is facing, obviously, default on 

some of its obligations, would be made 

whole. 

I yield to my friend. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5323 

Mr. CANTOR. I’d say to the gentleman, the Senate postal bill does not 

have majority support in the House, 

and we are continuing to work with 

Chairman ISSA to ensure that there 

isn’t an incident of default on the part 

of the Post Office. I think that the 

Postal Service has indicated that there 

is no risk of that in the short-term, and 

we’re going to continue to address that 

to ensure that that does not happen; all 

the while, trying to address the overall 

issues, as the gentleman knows, that 

the Postal Service has in trying to get 

its fiscal house in order. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. 

Lastly, on a note on which we have 

great agreement between the majority 

leader and I, which is not always the 

case, as people observe, I’m sure: Iran 

sanctions. 

Both the majority leader and I, Mr. 

Speaker, want to see that bill pass before the August break. And I would inquire of the majority leader his view of 

the status of that issue at this point in 

time. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would 

tell the gentleman, I know that our 

staffs have been working very diligently on this trying to iron out the 

differences with the other body and am 

very hopeful that we can get this done 

prior to the August recess. 

Mr. HOYER. I look forward, Mr. 

Speaker, to working with the majority 

leader toward that end over the next 7, 

8 days. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

f 

ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY, JULY 

30, 2012 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that when the 

House adjourns today, it adjourn to 

meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. POE

of Texas). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia? 

There was no objection. 

f 

THE RED TAPE REDUCTION AND 

SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATION 

ACT 

(Mr. ROKITA asked and was given 

permission to address the House for 1 

minute.) 

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today in strong support of the Red 

Tape Reduction and Small Business 

Job Creation Act. Time and again I 

hear from my constituents that they 

want to hire more workers, but they 

don’t know what regulation is going to 

be coming down the pike next. 

Congress does not spend enough time 

fulfilling its constitutional responsibility of overseeing the executive 

branch. This is why, a little more than 

a year ago, in partnership with the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, we started Indiana’s Red Tape Rollback Program to listen to Hoosiers, take their 

regulatory concerns to Washington, 

and get results. 

This, Mr. Speaker is our annual report. This is a page from that report, 

about 26 pages long. 

Regulatory burdens are equal opportunity. They don’t affect one industry 

or type of people. Regulatory burdens 

hurt agriculture, transportation, and 

even our home health care workers, 

who fear they won’t be able to care for 

their clients. They hurt everybody. 

I’m pleased that we have achieved a 

victory in 20 of our cases, and we will 

continue charging forward. I will continue to talk about the harm of overregulation and what it does to our 

economy. I will continue to advocate 

for a limited government, and I will 

continue to roll back the red tape. 

You can get the report at 

rokita.house.gov. 

f 

THE CHRISTENING OF THE USS 

SOMERSET 

(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given 

permission to address the House for 1 

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today to highlight another milestone 

in the continuing efforts to honor the 

heroics of the 40 heroes aboard United 

Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. 

On July 28, the USS Somerset will be 

christened. The Somerset is named in 

honor of the passengers and crew of 

United Airlines Flight 93, and Somerset is the county in Pennsylvania in 

which United Flight 93 went down. 

The 680-foot, 105-foot wide LPD 

transport dock ship is used to transport and land U.S. Marines, and also 

support amphibious assaults by our 

U.S. Special Forces. 

Located on the property near the 

crash site were two draglines, machinery used in coal-stripping operations. 

In the days following the crash, a huge 

American flag was hoisted on top of 

one of the draglines, and the flag stood 

as a constant reminder of the sacrifices 

of the heroes of Flight 93. 

In honor of the passengers and crew 

of Flight 93, the 22-ton bucket of one of 

the draglines was melted and cast into 

the ship’s bow stern. In addition, the 

USS Somerset’s mast will also contain a 

time capsule. 

The USS Somerset, a bold representation of America’s military strength, is 

a fitting tribute to the 40 ordinary 

Americans who took a stand against 

the enemies of free society and represent the best aspects of the American 

spirit. Their actions prevented further 

loss of life and disruption of some of 

the most recognizable symbols of freedom and democracy in the world. 

Mr. Speaker, following is my statement in its entirety: 

I rise today to highlight another milestone in 

the continuing efforts to honor the heroics of 

the 40 heroes aboard United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. 

On July 28, the USS Somerset will be christened at the Avondale shipyard outside of 

New Orleans, Louisiana. The Somerset is 

named in honor of the passengers and crew 

of United Airlines Flight 93, whose courageous 

actions prevented terrorist hijackers from 

reaching their intended target in Washington, 

DC on September 11, 2001. Somerset is the 

county in Pennsylvania in which United Flight 

93 crashed. 

This 684-foot, 105-foot-wide LPD transport 

dock ship is used to transport and land U.S. 

Marines. LPD ships have supported amphibious assaults for special operations forces, expeditionary warfare missions, and humanitarian missions throughout the first half of the 

21st century. 

The final resting area of the 40 heroes who 

decided to fight back against the terrorists on 

that fateful day was an abandoned coal strip 

mine. 

Located on the property near the crash site 

were two draglines once used in coal stripping. In the days following the crash, a huge 

American flag was hoisted to the top of one of 

the draglines. The flag stood as a constant reminder of the sacrifices and love of country 

shown by the Flight 93 heroes. 

In honor of the passengers and crew of 

Flight 93, the 22-ton bucket of one of the 

draglines was melted and cast into the Somerset’s bow stern. In addition, USS Somerset’s 

mast also will contain a time capsule that includes such items as a bottle of Meyersdale 

maple syrup, a Flight 93 10th-anniversary 

commemorative pin and a Somerset Borough 

bicentennial marble. 

The USS Somerset, a bold representation of 

America’s military strength and humanitarianism, is a fitting tribute to the 40 ordinary 

Americans who took a stand against the enemies of a free society and represent the best 

aspects of the American spirit. Their actions 

prevented further loss of life and the destruction of the most recognized symbols of freedom and democracy in the world. 

f 

b 1320 

TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS TO 

VISIT UNITED STATES 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

HECK). Under the Speaker’s announced 

policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. GOHMERT) is 

recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. 

Speaker. 

There is nothing like being vilified to 

get your senses acutely attuned. We 

had a hearing in Judiciary last week— 

on July 19, actually—in which Secretary of Homeland Security Janet 

Napolitano appeared. During the exchange that I had with Secretary 

Napolitano, I said these words. They’re 

from the transcript: 

And this administration seems to 

have a hard time recognizing members 

of terrorist groups who are allowed 

into the White House. You’re aware of 

that happening, aren’t you? 

Secretary Napolitano: Absolutely 

not. 

This week, apparently, somebody 

brought her back into the loop when 

she testified before PETE KING’s committee. There are a couple of articles 

here about it that are rather interesting. One is from The Hill, by Jordy 

Yager, apparently posted today, July 

26: 

Homeland Security Secretary Janet 

Napolitano told lawmakers on Wednesday 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE